Except that the "better quality of service" is ultimately extortion.
"Pay me or you cannot pass to our customers".
The ISP is paid for customer access to "the internet", not to the short list of who the ISP thinks is worthy. I dont want my ISP picking winners and losers. I dont want my ISP infringing my right to visit sites as I choose.
I'm a fanboy. 1992 E34 ( 525i ) and 2000 E46 ( 328i ). Easy to work on ( no, really ), within the era's I have owned.
BMW has been trying hard to make their later model cars harder to work on, it seems. But the older ones are great, in my opinion.
To be clear, the water pumps have plastic impellers, they are not made of plastic entirely. And they do tend to fall apart after a while. Get a Graf replacement pump with metal impeller blades ( unless you want to do the Stewart pump at about 200.00 ), remove serp belt, remove 4 bolts, push out with provided threaded eyelets ( coolant will spill, catch it ), Vaseline up the o-ring on the new pump, pull it back in with the 4 bolts, top up with proper coolant ( different than "green", dont buy the premix ), put the serp belt back on, go. On the 2000 328, the coolant overflow tank ( different than most, ) will split and fail, if run too long. replace it.
Few seem to fault Honda for building engines that are interference ( valves will hit pistons if the timing belt gives out ) and electing to use a belt, guaranteeing that you have to service something that requires major disassembly every 60k to 100k miles, or risk your engine being ruined. Ford elected to use plastic for the thermostat cover on a 1996 mustang I owned, which gave way and ruined the engine when it ran itself out of coolant. Ford then turned around on a car that was maybe a year old and few miles and replaced the engine with a rebuilt unit, not a new one. Point being all manufactures have issues.
Hoping to get an M3/M5 at some point, had the use ( free, for about 2 years ) of a mustang. The one with the coyote motor. Loved the go. It could not corner for anything. Either of my BMW's would have dusted it in any cornering heavy track. And been left waaaaay in the dust on a drag strip...:-) So, the M would have the handling I am used to, with something close to the power level of the mustang.
Or, ( radical notion, I know ), give the government the correct amount of power to do it's job, make it answerable to the general populace, and remove corporate influence over the government.
Government is the only thing that has made education something available to the general populace. Sure, technically, individual parents can educate their kids, but not evenly and to a great extent. Not well, in general. Not past the very basics ( speaking the native language, maybe a bit of math and writing ). Do for profit entities do it better? Sure, if you can pay. And that leads us straight into a whole lot of ugly. Class divisions. To the extent that our democratic trappings work, they will surely stop working.
Government, here in the US was not involved in food safety for a long time. Corporations, intent on maximizing profits, would regularly, intentionally put food they knew fully was not safe out for sale. Lots of people died. Yes, government has most assuredly made the food you eat safer.
Government could be a source of medical care. Or not. It should certainly ensure that standards are met in how care is given.
Government can be a source of many evils, including mass death. It is important to keep it in check, watching it carefully and continually. Not allowing the powerful to amass more power within or using it. Not allowing the various branches to be corrupted or influenced, as we have. Or why do corporations make campaign contributions? When a corporation makes a donation to a charity, they emblazon it across the store/news, so you will know what great people they are. Why do they hide the campaign contributions? Why do they make them at all? They expect a return. If that is not bribery and corruption, what is?
"You can't even have somebody else to enforce your property rights, but have to go with the government."
Who would you recommend?
Yourself? Easy to overcome, two or more people wanting what you have, and you don't have anymore. Even one person, better armed, sneaker, luckier, etc'ier.
Yourself and a private army? You have to have money/power/etc to make this work. I don't know about you, but I can't see this as leading to anything but a feudal system of warlords battling to defend what they have when relatively weak and battling to grab more when they are relatively strong. And what about those who dont have?
Corporate "protection"? If they are what keeps you in what is "yours", how long will that last? Either they will adopt the above, and become a warlord, or they will bleed you dry in fees, until they own what was once yours.
Government came out of the "Yourself and a private army" model. And if that is what you have, well, that sucks.
Today, however, we have the ideal ( that we seem to be creeping away from ) of a government composed of, guided by "we the people". Until people become a whole lot wiser and kinder, it sucks, but it is better than the other options.
Unless the apps were Metro, Microsoft's "overhaul" of the UI in just about any version of the OS, ( excepting the NT/2000 to XP update ) does little to change the underlying "stuff" you need to do to "paint" the app on the screen. And even the NT/2000 to XP update did not invalidate the older apps. Metro deliberately breaks all that in order to attempt to force developers into their version of the "walled garden" model that Apple has.
Why does the FDA say to put an expiration date on things? Because greed can go to harmful extremes, people and companies will use things past a real expiration date, if they think they can get away with it, and it will make them additional money ( in not purchasing non-expired medicines ).
Why does the FDA say to toss expired drugs? See above.
Food was the same thing, people were getting killed eating tainted food because the seller would sell it, knowing it was bad or questionable.
Healthcare: I agree that putting the cost of healthcare as payroll deduction removes any real ability for market forces to work, and my understanding of how that came to pass matches yours, mostly, except I believe it was during WWII, with the wage/price freezes then in effect. But it wasn't government interference that created this, it was companies looking to entice workers to work for them. They could not up the wages they paid, so they looked a non-wage things employees might want. Government went along with it, and it became a deductible thing in the course of time.
But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".
And it does not change the point made. The wealthy are changing legislation to grant themselves more power and lower taxes.
If they were being taxed at rates live 60's/70's England ( like the 90% rates I understand they had ), I would argue their rates should be lowered. But, they are not. And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us", but from a "I want to keep more, the rest of you have no say" basis. There is no democracy involved, no discussion, no consideration of other viewpoints, no thought of outcomes, just power and the exercise thereof. ( and I dont think democracy should descend into "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner", that is not right either )
When they get their crybaby way, either services are cut ( but not in their neighborhoods ) or others have to step up and pay more, or the deficit spending they like to rail against is done ( which is just a special case of the above two scenarios, but moved to the future and multiplied )
Our government is supposed to be "of/by/for *the people*". Not "of/by/for *the wealthy*".. Important note, the wealthy are a component of the people. They should have the same rights/say/power as anyone else. Not more, and not less.
1, "The stuff I ( the bandwidth provider ) want to go faster, like my internal <pick service here>, will go faster, and external services from other vendors/services will go slower, actual bandwidth be damned, to make mine the 'best' ( or maybe even 'the only usable' )", because perceived profits / advantage to the provider.
2, "Services that are more time sensitive will have higher priority", because it is in the interests of the purchaser.
Number 2 is a perfectly valid reason and way to implement QoS. I have a hard time seeing NN proponents being opposed to this. In fact, in my opinion, #2 *is* NN. Number 1 would be the reason to oppose, but it does not have to be that way.
I do not want Maytag working with my gas/electric provider to "ensure" that Maytag washers, dryers, stoves, etc work great, and everyone else's suck. I do not want Goodyear working with Chevy to "make sure" that Goodyear tires are great, but all others suck.
*I* pay for my bandwidth. *I* don't want the vendor choosing what services I can use over that bandwidth. *I* pick what I use. If they cant be profitable, that is on them, they need to find a way to make it work. They should be in the business of transferring bits, nothing else.
You are correct about politicians being technically clueless. So what? Does that mean we all go back to living in caves?
Educate them. We, as a community, have screeched loud enough to be heard on this before. Lets do it again!
What the person you responded to wrote was "It's kind of a shame that you would really think that. Confirmation bias and gullibility are not monopolized by one side of a political divide. Anyone who thinks they are always correct and clear-eyed, is simply wrong."
The "guy" part was in the post responded to, one level up and your dead on point would have been correctly leveled.
"At the core of a real solution will be us reconceptualizing what people are here for and where we should get our self-worth. At the core of a real solution needs to be fair and adequate ways of distributing the proceeds of a substantially automated economy."
You are quite right. However, a real solution for all times up till now would have been exactly this. We have not managed to value people, in general, for more than their economic worth to date. We have not managed to be fair in distributing the proceeds of our existing economy. We have not changed, inside, in general, I have no expectation ( hope, yes, but not so much expectation ) for actual heart change in people.
From my reading, the car will not do it's ultimate performance unless it is placed into either "Ludicrous" or "Insane" mode. Sounds like they have already thought on this.
The car was likely owned by the 45 yo boss. He was likely hoping some alcohol and the chance to drive his insanely fast car would get him into her pants.
What free ride? Content providers pay for their internet access. If the ISP cannot price their offerings such that they are able to deal with the traffic, that is on them.
What you propose is nothing less than extortion ( "pay up for the packets... get slowed..." )
Very advanced aliens come to earth. ( they got lost ( not very advanced, eh? ), wrong turn at Aldebaran ) They are ( i would not argue ethically, but ) advanced beyond us. Lets concentrate on the power/technology aspect of this. They have power to dominate us as individuals and as a civilization. And they live about 1000 years, so our ~100 year span is "brief" to them. They are biologically similar to us, so the things that go wrong in us also go wrong in them. So, they decide that we make good test subjects for research into various research topics ( regrowing limbs, how long can the brain live without a body, without sensory input, hair loss, etc ).
They land here, and pick *you* for something that will benefit them tremendously, but will require things be done to your person. It may be painful, but they will have some pity for your state, and pump you up on painkillers where this does not harm the experiment. Your mental state will not be considered. Addicted is OK for them, you are a test subject. Your connections to fellow human beings will not be considered, unless that is part of the test, and staying with your loved ones is very unlikely. You will also be put down painlessly at the conclusion of their test, even if the test is a success. You will, in no case, receive any benefits of this research, nor will humanity as a whole. Your body will be disposed of after, probably as food for other experiments.
Has the ethical landscape changed for you? If you say "no", I ask "really?"
They do upgrade and iterate the aircraft. The F-15 is up to version D/E ( E being the strike variant, ground attack roles are often added towards the end of a fighter's lifespan )
Unfortunately, there does come a time when, depending on the intended use, upgrade and iterate does not work any more. For aircraft like the B-1/B-52 and like the A-10, I am in much more agreement with you. But for fighters, things get different. You can do what the Russians are doing, buy many less expensive aircraft. But you have to buy more. Expense can still be high.
When the F-15 ( Design from 1967, First Flight 1972 ) entered service, 20k pounds of thrust per engine was norm, now, 40k pounds of thrust, with vectoring thrust is the norm. You say, shore it up, make it stronger. Sure, but then you really have to re-engineer a fair bit of the aircraft. Low observable was just on the horizon at that time, so the aircraft shape is not optimal, they did not have the resources to refine the shape. More re-engineering. And there are improvements in the radar and avionics. Often, existing aircraft are updated with these, but at some point the space and power and aircraft shape requirements mean it just wont go.
So, my prescription would be update and iterate as needed when a new aircraft is really needed, design a specific aircraft for that role. The F-22 had it's teething pains ( if you watch closely pretty much *every* aircraft does. Famous example, P-51 Mustang. Almost didn't make it. The British stuck a Merlin engine ( with 2 speed, 2 stage supercharger ) replacing the Allison single stage supercharged engine* in a test aircraft sent over for evaluation ( the Mustang was built for the English ) after they tested it with the Allison, and found it lacking. Today, everyone forgets it's teething troubles, and praises it ) Where things go really sideways is when the aircraft is designed for multiple missions. We keep thinking we are being smart, but it keeps biting us in the bottom. F/B-111, is an obscure example.. Supposed to be a naval fighter and ground attack aircraft. When it's role was finally limited to the ground attack part ( with the F-14 emerging as a fighter to take that role ) it was able to succeed. The F-35 is our recent example. It may turn out to be an excellent aircraft, but it is going thru it's teething time now. And trying to make it a good fighter and bomber, and STOL/STOVL aircraft ( to suit Marines and British interest in a Harrier replacement ) is complicating things. Separate the concerns. And, in a sense, they are, with the A/B/C variants of the aircraft, but the ties to each other complicate things.
* the Allison engine was a good engine, it was crippled by the supercharger. Army Air Corps people did not believe there was a need, never mind what was going on in Europe. The same engine, turbocharged, in the P-38 gave America it's first 400+ mph aircraft.
"Even if locked, opening the door via the interior door latch WILL unlock the door."
Depends on the car. My Fords did this great. BMW's have a pull twice thing ( first pull unlocks, second pull opens ) GM, I have not owned any recent ones, but my recollection is that they dont open unless you unlock using the inside thingy to unlock.
In the days of my youth, I bought a club and used it on my pickup. I went to a friend's house, the friend had some friends of, shall we say, ill repute. My friend told me not to bother with the club, it was not effective. I disputed, he said, "Ok...". We went into the house, then back out a short time later. My friend "I told you so...". There was the club, sitting on the seat, no damage to the steering wheel, none to the club. The club was still locked, and, as far as I could tell, just as it was when I put it on while discussing it's goodness.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the "better quality of service" is ultimately extortion.
"Pay me or you cannot pass to our customers".
The ISP is paid for customer access to "the internet", not to the short list of who the ISP thinks is worthy.
I dont want my ISP picking winners and losers.
I dont want my ISP infringing my right to visit sites as I choose.
I'm a fanboy. 1992 E34 ( 525i ) and 2000 E46 ( 328i ).
Easy to work on ( no, really ), within the era's I have owned.
BMW has been trying hard to make their later model cars harder to work on, it seems. But the older ones are great, in my opinion.
To be clear, the water pumps have plastic impellers, they are not made of plastic entirely. And they do tend to fall apart after a while. Get a Graf replacement pump with metal impeller blades ( unless you want to do the Stewart pump at about 200.00 ), remove serp belt, remove 4 bolts, push out with provided threaded eyelets ( coolant will spill, catch it ), Vaseline up the o-ring on the new pump, pull it back in with the 4 bolts, top up with proper coolant ( different than "green", dont buy the premix ), put the serp belt back on, go.
On the 2000 328, the coolant overflow tank ( different than most, ) will split and fail, if run too long. replace it.
Few seem to fault Honda for building engines that are interference ( valves will hit pistons if the timing belt gives out ) and electing to use a belt, guaranteeing that you have to service something that requires major disassembly every 60k to 100k miles, or risk your engine being ruined. Ford elected to use plastic for the thermostat cover on a 1996 mustang I owned, which gave way and ruined the engine when it ran itself out of coolant. Ford then turned around on a car that was maybe a year old and few miles and replaced the engine with a rebuilt unit, not a new one. Point being all manufactures have issues.
Hoping to get an M3/M5 at some point, had the use ( free, for about 2 years ) of a mustang. The one with the coyote motor. Loved the go. It could not corner for anything. Either of my BMW's would have dusted it in any cornering heavy track. And been left waaaaay in the dust on a drag strip... :-) So, the M would have the handling I am used to, with something close to the power level of the mustang.
Or, ( radical notion, I know ), give the government the correct amount of power to do it's job, make it answerable to the general populace, and remove corporate influence over the government.
Government is the only thing that has made education something available to the general populace. Sure, technically, individual parents can educate their kids, but not evenly and to a great extent. Not well, in general. Not past the very basics ( speaking the native language, maybe a bit of math and writing ). Do for profit entities do it better? Sure, if you can pay. And that leads us straight into a whole lot of ugly. Class divisions. To the extent that our democratic trappings work, they will surely stop working.
Government, here in the US was not involved in food safety for a long time. Corporations, intent on maximizing profits, would regularly, intentionally put food they knew fully was not safe out for sale. Lots of people died. Yes, government has most assuredly made the food you eat safer.
Government could be a source of medical care. Or not. It should certainly ensure that standards are met in how care is given.
Government can be a source of many evils, including mass death. It is important to keep it in check, watching it carefully and continually. Not allowing the powerful to amass more power within or using it. Not allowing the various branches to be corrupted or influenced, as we have. Or why do corporations make campaign contributions? When a corporation makes a donation to a charity, they emblazon it across the store/news, so you will know what great people they are. Why do they hide the campaign contributions? Why do they make them at all? They expect a return. If that is not bribery and corruption, what is?
"You can't even have somebody else to enforce your property rights, but have to go with the government."
Who would you recommend?
Yourself? Easy to overcome, two or more people wanting what you have, and you don't have anymore. Even one person, better armed, sneaker, luckier, etc'ier.
Yourself and a private army? You have to have money/power/etc to make this work. I don't know about you, but I can't see this as leading to anything but a feudal system of warlords battling to defend what they have when relatively weak and battling to grab more when they are relatively strong. And what about those who dont have?
Corporate "protection"? If they are what keeps you in what is "yours", how long will that last? Either they will adopt the above, and become a warlord, or they will bleed you dry in fees, until they own what was once yours.
Government came out of the "Yourself and a private army" model. And if that is what you have, well, that sucks.
Today, however, we have the ideal ( that we seem to be creeping away from ) of a government composed of, guided by "we the people". Until people become a whole lot wiser and kinder, it sucks, but it is better than the other options.
That might be an argument for smaller government. It is an even better reason to completely disallow corporate influence over government at any size.
Unless the apps were Metro, Microsoft's "overhaul" of the UI in just about any version of the OS, ( excepting the NT/2000 to XP update ) does little to change the underlying "stuff" you need to do to "paint" the app on the screen. And even the NT/2000 to XP update did not invalidate the older apps. Metro deliberately breaks all that in order to attempt to force developers into their version of the "walled garden" model that Apple has.
Break it down a little further.
Why does the FDA say to put an expiration date on things?
Because greed can go to harmful extremes, people and companies will use things past a real expiration date, if they think they can get away with it, and it will make them additional money ( in not purchasing non-expired medicines ).
Why does the FDA say to toss expired drugs? See above.
Food was the same thing, people were getting killed eating tainted food because the seller would sell it, knowing it was bad or questionable.
Healthcare:
I agree that putting the cost of healthcare as payroll deduction removes any real ability for market forces to work, and my understanding of how that came to pass matches yours, mostly, except I believe it was during WWII, with the wage/price freezes then in effect. But it wasn't government interference that created this, it was companies looking to entice workers to work for them. They could not up the wages they paid, so they looked a non-wage things employees might want. Government went along with it, and it became a deductible thing in the course of time.
Indeed, cutting taxes is not giving.
But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".
And it does not change the point made. The wealthy are changing legislation to grant themselves more power and lower taxes.
If they were being taxed at rates live 60's/70's England ( like the 90% rates I understand they had ), I would argue their rates should be lowered.
But, they are not.
And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us", but from a "I want to keep more, the rest of you have no say" basis.
There is no democracy involved, no discussion, no consideration of other viewpoints, no thought of outcomes, just power and the exercise thereof.
( and I dont think democracy should descend into "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner", that is not right either )
When they get their crybaby way, either services are cut ( but not in their neighborhoods ) or others have to step up and pay more, or the deficit spending they like to rail against is done ( which is just a special case of the above two scenarios, but moved to the future and multiplied )
Our government is supposed to be "of/by/for *the people*". Not "of/by/for *the wealthy*"..
Important note, the wealthy are a component of the people. They should have the same rights/say/power as anyone else. Not more, and not less.
I would argue she was an asset to the company.
It is now in the process of growing up a bit. It may not make it to grown up, but this was a needed kick in the slats.
Amen!
So succinctly put.
Not necessarily.
There are many ways to use QoS. Two of them are:
1, "The stuff I ( the bandwidth provider ) want to go faster, like my internal <pick service here>, will go faster, and external services from other vendors/services will go slower, actual bandwidth be damned, to make mine the 'best' ( or maybe even 'the only usable' )", because perceived profits / advantage to the provider.
2, "Services that are more time sensitive will have higher priority", because it is in the interests of the purchaser.
Number 2 is a perfectly valid reason and way to implement QoS.
I have a hard time seeing NN proponents being opposed to this. In fact, in my opinion, #2 *is* NN.
Number 1 would be the reason to oppose, but it does not have to be that way.
I do not want Maytag working with my gas/electric provider to "ensure" that Maytag washers, dryers, stoves, etc work great, and everyone else's suck.
I do not want Goodyear working with Chevy to "make sure" that Goodyear tires are great, but all others suck.
*I* pay for my bandwidth. *I* don't want the vendor choosing what services I can use over that bandwidth.
*I* pick what I use.
If they cant be profitable, that is on them, they need to find a way to make it work.
They should be in the business of transferring bits, nothing else.
You are correct about politicians being technically clueless. So what?
Does that mean we all go back to living in caves?
Educate them. We, as a community, have screeched loud enough to be heard on this before.
Lets do it again!
Reading and comprehension....
What the person you responded to wrote was "It's kind of a shame that you would really think that. Confirmation bias and gullibility are not monopolized by one side of a political divide. Anyone who thinks they are always correct and clear-eyed, is simply wrong."
The "guy" part was in the post responded to, one level up and your dead on point would have been correctly leveled.
"At the core of a real solution will be us reconceptualizing what people are here for and where we should get our self-worth.
At the core of a real solution needs to be fair and adequate ways of distributing the proceeds of a substantially automated economy."
You are quite right.
However, a real solution for all times up till now would have been exactly this.
We have not managed to value people, in general, for more than their economic worth to date.
We have not managed to be fair in distributing the proceeds of our existing economy.
We have not changed, inside, in general, I have no expectation ( hope, yes, but not so much expectation ) for actual heart change in people.
From my reading, the car will not do it's ultimate performance unless it is placed into either "Ludicrous" or "Insane" mode.
Sounds like they have already thought on this.
The car was likely owned by the 45 yo boss.
He was likely hoping some alcohol and the chance to drive his insanely fast car would get him into her pants.
"getting a free ride to consumer grade accounts"
What free ride? Content providers pay for their internet access.
If the ISP cannot price their offerings such that they are able to deal with the traffic, that is on them.
What you propose is nothing less than extortion ( "pay up for the packets... get slowed..." )
Thought experiment:
Very advanced aliens come to earth. ( they got lost ( not very advanced, eh? ), wrong turn at Aldebaran )
They are ( i would not argue ethically, but ) advanced beyond us. Lets concentrate on the power/technology aspect of this.
They have power to dominate us as individuals and as a civilization. And they live about 1000 years, so our ~100 year span is "brief" to them.
They are biologically similar to us, so the things that go wrong in us also go wrong in them.
So, they decide that we make good test subjects for research into various research topics ( regrowing limbs, how long can the brain live without a body, without sensory input, hair loss, etc ).
They land here, and pick *you* for something that will benefit them tremendously, but will require things be done to your person.
It may be painful, but they will have some pity for your state, and pump you up on painkillers where this does not harm the experiment.
Your mental state will not be considered. Addicted is OK for them, you are a test subject.
Your connections to fellow human beings will not be considered, unless that is part of the test, and staying with your loved ones is very unlikely.
You will also be put down painlessly at the conclusion of their test, even if the test is a success.
You will, in no case, receive any benefits of this research, nor will humanity as a whole.
Your body will be disposed of after, probably as food for other experiments.
Has the ethical landscape changed for you?
If you say "no", I ask "really?"
Quite true. And what would happen after no defense?
They do upgrade and iterate the aircraft. The F-15 is up to version D/E ( E being the strike variant, ground attack roles are often added towards the end of a fighter's lifespan )
Unfortunately, there does come a time when, depending on the intended use, upgrade and iterate does not work any more.
For aircraft like the B-1/B-52 and like the A-10, I am in much more agreement with you. But for fighters, things get different.
You can do what the Russians are doing, buy many less expensive aircraft. But you have to buy more. Expense can still be high.
When the F-15 ( Design from 1967, First Flight 1972 ) entered service, 20k pounds of thrust per engine was norm, now, 40k pounds of thrust, with vectoring thrust is the norm. You say, shore it up, make it stronger. Sure, but then you really have to re-engineer a fair bit of the aircraft. Low observable was just on the horizon at that time, so the aircraft shape is not optimal, they did not have the resources to refine the shape. More re-engineering. And there are improvements in the radar and avionics. Often, existing aircraft are updated with these, but at some point the space and power and aircraft shape requirements mean it just wont go.
So, my prescription would be
update and iterate as needed
when a new aircraft is really needed, design a specific aircraft for that role. The F-22 had it's teething pains ( if you watch closely pretty much *every* aircraft does. Famous example, P-51 Mustang. Almost didn't make it. The British stuck a Merlin engine ( with 2 speed, 2 stage supercharger ) replacing the Allison single stage supercharged engine* in a test aircraft sent over for evaluation ( the Mustang was built for the English ) after they tested it with the Allison, and found it lacking. Today, everyone forgets it's teething troubles, and praises it )
Where things go really sideways is when the aircraft is designed for multiple missions.
We keep thinking we are being smart, but it keeps biting us in the bottom. F/B-111, is an obscure example.. Supposed to be a naval fighter and ground attack aircraft. When it's role was finally limited to the ground attack part ( with the F-14 emerging as a fighter to take that role ) it was able to succeed.
The F-35 is our recent example. It may turn out to be an excellent aircraft, but it is going thru it's teething time now. And trying to make it a good fighter and bomber, and STOL/STOVL aircraft ( to suit Marines and British interest in a Harrier replacement ) is complicating things.
Separate the concerns. And, in a sense, they are, with the A/B/C variants of the aircraft, but the ties to each other complicate things.
* the Allison engine was a good engine, it was crippled by the supercharger. Army Air Corps people did not believe there was a need, never mind what was going on in Europe. The same engine, turbocharged, in the P-38 gave America it's first 400+ mph aircraft.
We would not have VA spending if we did not have defense spending.
Land.
"Even if locked, opening the door via the interior door latch WILL unlock the door."
Depends on the car.
My Fords did this great. BMW's have a pull twice thing ( first pull unlocks, second pull opens )
GM, I have not owned any recent ones, but my recollection is that they dont open unless you unlock using the inside thingy to unlock.
In the days of my youth, I bought a club and used it on my pickup.
I went to a friend's house, the friend had some friends of, shall we say, ill repute.
My friend told me not to bother with the club, it was not effective. I disputed, he said, "Ok...".
We went into the house, then back out a short time later. My friend "I told you so...".
There was the club, sitting on the seat, no damage to the steering wheel, none to the club.
The club was still locked, and, as far as I could tell, just as it was when I put it on while discussing it's goodness.
How will you keep it metallic?